Jesus and the Last Supper

[Fingy]

Has anyone thought about why John's gospel does not have the Eucharist at the last supper (as mentioned in the first post), substituting this for the washing of the disciples feet instead? John is certainly aware of the Eucharist as he gives Jesus a long dialogue with "the Jews" regarding this in chapter 6:52-58. The theology of the ritual is spelled out clearly here. But why John would pass over such a pivotal moment at the last supper is curious.

 

[Kenny]

Has anyone thought about why John's gospel does not have the Eucharist at the last supper (as mentioned in the first post), substituting this for the washing of the disciples feet instead? John is certainly aware of the Eucharist as he gives Jesus a long dialogue with "the Jews" regarding this in chapter 6:52-58. The theology of the ritual is spelled out clearly here. But why John would pass over such a pivotal moment at the last supper is curious.

That is a good point. Obviously, we can only conjecture as to why.

Perhaps because he knew that the celebration was something that was already addressed by the other authors? Perhaps because the celebration of the Passover was already understood? Perhaps because there were other just as important issues?

Ultimately, I guess one will have to ask him when we see him again.

 

[bippy123]

"""I certainly have seen people who are taught by spiritual teachers and seen the very student twist and change what is said.

What I do know is that Jesus was enacting the supper that was being enacted in every home and thus was not meant to be only for bishops to administer."""

this is incorrect my friend, and it shows during the heresies that the arians and docetists perpetrated on the church. As soon as they started to teach differently from what the apostles taught the apostolic fathers and church fathers after that quickly denounced them as heretics.

They never once called ignatius of antioch a heretic and he was the bishop of antioch. It was clear that this was a normal teaching that had been passed down by the apostles. This is a huge point in favor of the literal interpretation, since ignatius was also ordained the bishop of antioch he was also passed down the authority to bind and loose.

but let me focus on the flesh and blood of Christ.

Catholicism Now: The Eucharist

In John 6, Jesus was speaking about the Jews’ forefathers and manna, figuratively, and then suddenly caused a stir: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."(John 6:51).

Below, it shall be demonstrated that starting here, in verse 51, Christ spoke literally, and not in metaphor.

Below, it shall be demonstrated that starting here, in verse 51, Christ spoke literally, and not in metaphor.

His listeners asked, "...How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52). Obviously, the people took His words literally and were shocked by them. When Christ was misunderstood about metaphors such as the leaven of the Pharisees (Mark 8:15), Jesus promptly corrected their error and explained His meaning.

His listeners obviously believed he was speaking literally to them. No doubt about this by their response, and when he was misunderstood before about metaphors he corrected their errors and explained the meaning.

Does he do it here in the next verse?
lets see

However, here He reinforced His point: "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you... my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" (John 6:53-55). As a matter of fact, previously He had been using the word "phago", "to eat". Then, to reinforce his point all the more, He switched (starting in verse 54) to the more specific word "trogo." This word translates as "to chew, gnaw," etc. This is hardly the way to perpetuate a metaphor. Actually, "trogo" is never used symbolically in Scripture.

Christ reenforces this again and this time used the word trogo to signify that it was a literal eating of his body. this isnt even the last supper so you cant say he was literally talking about the bread. He is literally talking about himself qand his body.

Then his followers leave, does Christ correct his saying and brings them back? lets see.

Still taking Him completely literally, His followers said: "...This saying is hard; who can accept it" (John 6:60). Again, Jesus had an opportunity to explain the metaphor, but He did not: "...Does this shock you?" (John 6:61) Then, in John 6:66, many of His followers left Him over this teaching. Jesus had one last chance to explain, but He did not do that. Rather, He turned to his disciples and asked, "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) This is not how He would have behaved if He had intended the entire thing to be a metaphor.

Also, among the Jews of that day, the phrase "to eat the flesh and drink the blood" of someone had a meaning if used figuratively. In the Bible, it referred to a some kind of attack or defeat by an enemy, the judgment of God, or something similar (cf. Numbers 23:24, Psalm 27:2, Isaiah 47:26, Micah 3:3 Ezechiel 39:17-20, Revelation 17:6, 16). Therefore, John 6:54: "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life" makes no sense if Christ was speaking figuratively. In essence, He would have been saying something akin to: "He who assaulteth me hath everlasting life."

And this is why When Christ said to eat of his flesh he was talking literally and not figurately, and this is also supported by the earliest Christians like ignatius of antioch in 110ad and justin martyr after him in 160 ad. The literal interpretation was understood by the earliest Christians, and as i said before, if ignatius was committing a heresy he quickly would have been denounced as a heretic as the docetists and arians were.

To believe that Jesus meant it figuratively is going against scripture as well as early Christian history which supported the literal meaning.

Did the students of the apostolic fathers correct them or denounced this teaching as heresy even once in early Christian history?

lets see?

Quotations on the Holy Eucharist

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century: Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Justin Martyr clearly talks about a change that happens to the bread and wine which undergoes a transformation into the body and blood of Christ.
Again Justin Martyr who studied under the apostolic fathers talks about the literal change of the eucharist into the flesh and blood of Christ.

Is there any cry by any early Christian calling him a heretic for this teaching. Not a single word at all in early Christendom.

 

[bippy123]

Has anyone thought about why John's gospel does not have the Eucharist at the last supper (as mentioned in the first post), substituting this for the washing of the disciples feet instead? John is certainly aware of the Eucharist as he gives Jesus a long dialogue with "the Jews" regarding this in chapter 6:52-58. The theology of the ritual is spelled out clearly here. But why John would pass over such a pivotal moment at the last supper is curious.

very good question but as we can see Johns gospel didnt mention other things as well.

catholicism - What does it mean that John's Gospel does not have an account of the institution of the Eucharist? - Christianity Stack Exchange

John's Gospel does not contain many of the things recorded in the Synoptics, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the virgin birth, the Great Commission, and the Ascension. In fact, the only miracle outside of the Resurrection that appears in both the Synoptic gospels and John's gospel is the feeding of the 5,000.
This doesn't mean that John considered these things as unimportant at all. If John were, in fact, written much later than the other gospels, then perhaps John did not feel the need to replicate material that was already well established.
John writes for a very specific purpose, asserting that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31) So, the material he selects is done so for the purpose of supporting that premise. All the miracles and all the teachings center around that premise. The Eucharist appears to have not fit into that selection criteria for him, since it doesn't appear in the book.

Right - and John specifically said he didn't have space for everything: John 21:25 – Wikis Sep 30 '11 at 13:12

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps because he knew that the celebration was something that was already addressed by the other authors? .

Not likely

Gjohn was not created quickly, and it is independent of the synoptics.

More then likely came from a different geographic location then the others as well.

Christianity was factually wide and diverse early on, for hundreds of years actually

 

[Kenny]

Not likely

Gjohn was not created quickly, and it is independent of the synoptics.

More then likely came from a different geographic location then the others as well.

Christianity was factually wide and diverse early on, for hundreds of years actually

I would disagree… but as I said, who can really know? John was the last book to be written and would have been well aware of what Luke, Matthew and Mark wrote. All the synoptics were written before 100 AD

 

[outhouse]

I would disagree… but as I said, who can really know? John was the last book to be written and would have been well aware of what Luke, Matthew and Mark wrote. All the synoptics were written before 100 AD

You can "not like it" all you want. It will not change what we really know as what is the most plausible.

And some of GJohn has the possibility to predate that.

What you do not know is that all 4 gospels were compilations of previous sources, some written some oral.

Sate of compilation does not mean date it was all written.

There is no doubt within any modern scholarship that Gjohn was independent from the synoptics.

 

[Kenny]

You can "not like it" all you want. It will not change what we really know as what is the most plausible.

And some of GJohn has the possibility to predate that.

What you do not know is that all 4 gospels were compilations of previous sources, some written some oral.

Sate of compilation does not mean date it was all written.

There is no doubt within any modern scholarship that Gjohn was independent from the synoptics.

Yes… that is one position of many. "Plausible" for you is what supports your position even as "Plausible" for me is what supports mine unless we have hard data.

As you noted that indeed your position is based on "modern scholarship". Modern doesn't necessarily mean right. Indeed the Gospel of John is much different (yet the same) than the other three that truly are more synoptic.

The overall support remains that all four gospels were written before 100 AD.

 

[outhouse]

Yes… that is one position of many. .

So false positions have the same merit as educated positions.

 

[Kenny]

So false positions have the same merit as educated positions. :face palm:

I guess by what you are proposing… quite so.

 

[outhouse]

I guess by what you are proposing… quite so.

Back it with a source. Your bias doesn't cut it.

 

[Kenny]

Back it with a source. Your bias doesn't cut it.

Your statements

Gjohn was not created quickly,

Were you there?

More then likely came from a different geographic location then the others as well.

Relevance? Are my statements any different if I post (write) from Florida or Alaska?

Christianity was factually wide and diverse early on, for hundreds of years actually

Early? What is early? What is factually wide? Supportive documentation?

It will not change what we really know as what is the most plausible.

Plausible in whose eyes? Supportive documentation that it is more plausible?

What you do not know is that all 4 gospels were compilations of previous sources, some written some oral.

How do you know what I don't know?

What evidence do you have that some were written from oral?

Sate of compilation does not mean date it was all written.

Contradictory? If State of compilation does not mean date it was all written, doesn't that statement then suggest that the compilation of those Gospels was even earlier and therefore more factual?

I think the proverb of "Before you take the splinter out of someones eye, first take the log out of yours" is quite applicable.

And rather than come with another "attack mode" statement, could you just start by making statements that are relevant, factual, and supportive?

thank you

 

[outhouse]

could you just start by making statements that are relevant, factual, and supportive?

You have not made any.


John

Donald Guthrie helpfully identifies four categories of opinion on John’s historicity: those who believe John is independent of, interpretive of, a substitute for, or supplementary to the Synoptics.


3.1. Independent

As mentioned above some scholars believe it unlikely that John used Mark, or the other Synoptics as source material for his Gospel. Stephen Barton argues for the Gospel’s independence from the diversity of content:

The accounts of the life of Jesus are irreducibly diverse. Each has an integrity of its own. As redaction criticism and (more recently) narrative criticism have helped us to see, we have to speak of ‘the Jesus of Matthew’, ‘the Jesus of Mark’, and so on.[6]
An independent interpretation of the Fourth Gospel can imply that the author used other written sources apart from the Synoptics. Conversely, this position can lead scholars to a different conclusion: that John did not use other written sources, but rather oral traditions that could be, hypothetically, reliable. James Dunn criticises scholars who believe John used written sources as having a ‘post-printing press literary mind-set’[7]. By arguing for John’s reliance on oral tradition Dunn explains the ‘Synoptic-like material’[8] in the Fourth Gospel.

Dunn also affirms the unique but yet reliable account of Jesus’ life found in John. So it is evident that a belief in independent source material, of whatever type, does not necessarily affect scholars’ opinions about the historicity of John’s Gospel.

 

[Walkntune]

I am thinking that the last supper is the most important ritual that Jesus has left. Similar to the Last Supper is the washing of the feet. These three rituals reveal the essential truth of Jesus' life and his essential message.
The experience of Jesus was the one hundred percent love of God and one hundred percent of love of neighbour. When Jesus said, 'the Father and I are one' he revealed one hundred percent of love of God. When he said whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters that you do unto me, he revealed one hundred percent love of neighbour. In this sense in Jesus Christ the love of God reached one hundred percent and the love of neighbour reached one hundred percent. In that sense he represents the fullness of Truth.No truth can go beyond that.
The Last Supper reveals this fundamental truth. it reveals the one hundred percent love of God and one hundred percent love of neighbour. The bread and wine represent our human consciousness. They are raised to the level of divine so that they become body and blood God. They become sacred. This is the love of God. Then we need to give and receive this body and blood. Whatever we give to others is the body and blood of God and whatever we receive from others is the body and blood of God. This is the love of neighbour. In this sense human life becomes sacred and human relationships become sacred. Our life becomes the life of God and our actions become the actions.
This is the primary vocation of human beings when God said 'be fruitful and multiply'. This fruitfulness and multiplication is not limited to the physical multiplication of children. It is to multiply what is necessary to human beings. this way of living also can be described as 'unfolding'. Jesus did not celebrate the Eucharist only at the Last Supper. His whole life, after his enlightenment, was a continuous Eucharistic celebration. He was unfolding his life. He did not multiply physically but he multiplied bread and fish when people needed it. He changed water into wine when people needed it, he healed people when people needed it, he gave love and compassion whenever they are needed. So his whole life was a continuous Eucharistic celebration. In the Last Supper he showed his disciples the essence of his life and teaching and he asked them to do the same.
In the gospel of John we do not have the last Supper but the Washing of the Feet. it is exactly like the Eucharist. When a person realizes oneness with God( love of God) that person realizes that that everyone is one with God but not aware. That person servers others( love of neighbour),washing the feet, to realize their dignity and help others to realize that. The Last Supper reveals that purpose of our life is to love God one hundred percent and to love our neighbours one hundred percent.

I would appreciate if any one has any comments on it.

Good read!

 

[outhouse]

Good read!

Yes its great for theology and religion.

Doesn't really apply to history

Last Supper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some scholars consider the Lord's supper to have derived not from Jesus' last supper with the disciples but rather from the gentile tradition of memorial dinners for the dead.[53]

In this view, the Last Supper is a tradition associated mainly with the gentile churches that Paul established, rather than with the earlier, Jewish congregations.[53]
Luke is the only Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples to repeat the ritual of bread and wine.[54] Bart D. Ehrman states that these particular lines do not appear in certain ancient manuscripts and might not be original to the text.[55]

 

[Kenny]

Yes its great for theology and religion.

Doesn't really apply to history

Last Supper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some scholars consider the Lord's supper to have derived not from Jesus' last supper with the disciples but rather from the gentile tradition of memorial dinners for the dead.[53]

Yes, one can find just about any POV on the internet.

The Passover commemorated an event. The firstborn of those who did not apply blood died. It reminded those in the Exodus the bitterness of slavery and the deliverance God provided. We also have placed a significance to it. We too have experienced the slavery of sin and the deliverance God has provided as we applied the blood of our Lamb over the posts of our lives.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/661095/jewish/Introduction.htm

In this view, the Last Supper is a tradition associated mainly with the gentile churches that Paul established, rather than with the earlier, Jewish congregations.[53]

Yes… that would be normal since Paul reached out to the Gentiles. But to say the earlier church didn't is to say that the Jewish people didn't observe the Passover. So your point is mute.

Luke is the only Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples to repeat the ritual of bread and wine.[54] Bart D. Ehrman states that these particular lines do not appear in certain ancient manuscripts and might not be original to the text.[55]

Bart: He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[4]
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardly a quotable author and definitely not a position held by the mainstream of Christians with a Theology degree.

 

[outhouse]

The firstborn of those who did not apply blood died..

Do you think this has any historicity at all?

It reminded those in the Exodus the bitterness of slavery and the deliverance God provided.

According to historians the exodus is a literary creation and is not historical in any sense.

Hardly a quotable author and definitely not a position held by the mainstream of Christians with a Theology degree.

Says who? Bart Ehrman is a scholar, and if certain theist do not like real history it sounds like a personal problem.

Your no one to discredit such a qualified man.

Yes, one can find just about any POV on the internet.

Your no one to discredit a encylopedia and the knowledge it contains.

 

[sojourner]

You are correct in that 'nothing' can stop God from loving us; however, your “eternal security” is misleading.


Yes, God says in Romans 8:38-39 - "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".


But...Psalm 81:12 - still is still applicable to us today..."So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices".


Yes...God is a God of patience. He is longsuffering. He strives with men and calls them to repentance. He withholds His righteous judgment for a long season.


But finally there comes a time when this judgment is withheld no more.

And usually, when that time comes, God withholds judgement and does not punish as we deserve.

 

[Kenny]

Do you think this has any historicity at all?

According to historians the exodus is a literary creation and is not historical in any sense.

Depends on which group of Jewish Rabbis you talk to.

Says who? Bart Ehrman is a scholar, and if certain theist do not like real history it sounds like a personal problem.

The very same site you quote from.

Your no one to discredit such a qualified man.

I understand that for you he is qualified to support your position but he is hardly qualified to speak for Christendom. William Craig who debated Bart Errman doesn't agree with you.

Craig graduated from East Peoria Community High School in 1967 before attending Wheaton College, Illinois where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]
From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[7]

He is qualified enough.

Dr James Emery White doesn't agree with you.

Dr. White holds a B.S. degree in public relations and business from Appalachian State University, and the M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he was awarded a Garrett Teaching Fellowship in both New testament and Theology. He has also done advanced university study at Vanderbilt University in American religious history, and continuing education at Oxford University in England, including participation in Oxford's Summer Programme in Theology.
James Emery White is the author of over a dozen books, including such Gold Medallion nominees as "Serious Times" and "A Search for the Spiritual", Christianity Today book-of-the-year award winner "Embracing the Mysterious God", as well as "The Prayer God Longs For and Rethinking the Church. His most recent publications include The Church in an Age of Crisis, A Traveler’s Guide to the Kingdom, and What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary.

He is qualified enough

Dr. Miachael Licona doesn't agree with you.

Michael R. 'Mike' Licona (born July 17, 1961)[1] is an American New Testament scholar and Evangelical Christian apologist. Licona has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria) which he completed "with distinction" and the highest mark as well as an M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University. He was the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention) through 2011 and is now Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University. Licona specializes in defending the Resurrection of Jesus.

He is qualified enough.

How many would you like?

Your no one to discredit a encylopedia and the knowledge it contains.

I get it. If you post it, its acceptable. But if post it from an encyclopedia and the knowledge it contains, I have no right.

 

[outhouse]

Depends on which group of Jewish Rabbis you talk to.



The very same site you quote from.


I understand that for you he is qualified to support your position but he is hardly qualified to speak for Christendom. William Craig who debated Bart Errman doesn't agree with you.

Craig graduated from East Peoria Community High School in 1967 before attending Wheaton College, Illinois where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]
From 1980 to 1986 he was an assistant professor of philosophy at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He briefly held the position of associate professor of religious studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, from 1986 to 1987. From 1987 to 1994 Craig pursued further research at the University of Louvain, Belgium. Since 1996 he has held the position of research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.[7]

He is qualified enough.

Dr James Emery White doesn't agree with you.

Dr. White holds a B.S. degree in public relations and business from Appalachian State University, and the M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he was awarded a Garrett Teaching Fellowship in both New testament and Theology. He has also done advanced university study at Vanderbilt University in American religious history, and continuing education at Oxford University in England, including participation in Oxford's Summer Programme in Theology.
James Emery White is the author of over a dozen books, including such Gold Medallion nominees as "Serious Times" and "A Search for the Spiritual", Christianity Today book-of-the-year award winner "Embracing the Mysterious God", as well as "The Prayer God Longs For and Rethinking the Church. His most recent publications include The Church in an Age of Crisis, A Traveler’s Guide to the Kingdom, and What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary.

He is qualified enough

Dr. Miachael Licona doesn't agree with you.

Michael R. 'Mike' Licona (born July 17, 1961)[1] is an American New Testament scholar and Evangelical Christian apologist. Licona has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria) which he completed "with distinction" and the highest mark as well as an M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University. He was the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention) through 2011 and is now Associate Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University. Licona specializes in defending the Resurrection of Jesus.

He is qualified enough.

How many would you like?



I get it. If you post it, its acceptable. But if post it from an encyclopedia and the knowledge it contains, I have no right.

Do they all claim the exodus is real too?


They sound like a fine bunch of theologians


Posting how theological they are is not the same as posting what they say against Erhmans position.

Provide source.